Extrapolation of Range and Battery Size(s)

[Rashomon]

That, and most important of all -to enable decent Supercharger charging times. I don't believe Tesla will settle for "good enough" when it comes to key features like that.

The base M3 will be the 'good enough' model, like the S60 was. It will have the smallest acceptable pack, because even at $125 to $150/kWh, 5 or 10 kWh is a huge cost adder. When you're trying to hit an aggressive price target, 'good enough' takes over unless the feature has immense marketing benefit. In the case of the M3, 215 mile range (which will probably be 220-225 when they're done) is 'good enough' -- and actually superb by the standards of near-term EV competition. If Tesla can save $625 to $1500 on OEM cost with the minimal pack that meets that range, they will. Remember, the bigger pack will be available at a price that will increase Tesla's margins while satisfying customer's wants and relieving pressure to make the base model better. I would bet with any one individual on this forum who wants to take the wager that the pack comes in at under 55kWh.

 

[Zoomit]

Something else to consider is that they may be aiming to have the Model Y use the same battery as the TM3. That vehicle would be heavier and draggier, but it also needs to comfortably beat 200 miles in range.

 

[Rashomon]

Assuming the bigger pack is 15kWh bigger to put range at about 280 miles EPA, it's cost delta to Tesla might be around $1800-2500. They could make it a $5000 option with a very positive effect on margins, though I suspect they may be greedier. They'd bracket the Bolt with a car that gets better range at a $2500 lower cost, and one that just kills it on range and passenger room for only $2500 more. The twin motor model, assuming increased efficiency, might get close to a 300 EPA mile range.

 

[cokata]

i expect the highest end models to have over 300 mile EPA range and ~500hp. The one thing they need to fix is the cooling. Now probably it won't be a problem for the base model, but it will be embarrassing if the performance versions suffer from the same overheating problems as the Model S does.

 

[nd4spd569]

I'm just hoping that the larger battery isn't a 20 mile improvement over the base like the x. I'd want at least 50 improvement.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm just hoping that the larger battery isn't a 20 mile improvement over the base like the x. I'd want at least 50 improvement.

Why would you compare to the X which is a bigger heavier SUV? If you look at the S it goes from 240 to 294, for a 54 mile increase, which is probably more like we will see for the Model 3. (I think we will probably see an even larger range increase.)

 

[Saghost]

i expect the highest end models to have over 300 mile EPA range and ~500hp. The one thing they need to fix is the cooling. Now probably it won't be a problem for the base model, but it will be embarrassing if the performance versions suffer from the same overheating problems as the Model S does.

Might already be fixed. Have you seen the reports from folks that took Ludicrous cars to the track? Apparently it is much, much harder to get a Ludicrous car into power limiting (which presumably indicates that the primary purpose of the power limiting was to protect the battery pack main fuse.)

 

[rEVhappy]

From recent news, it's very likely 60kWh is out for the base model. Only question is by how much? I'm still going with 55kWh, unless Tesla abandons their increments of 5/10kWh tradition.

Assuming Tesla's battery costs are ~$180/kWh, this will be a savings of $900 per car for Tesla, not an insignificant figure for what will already be a low margin (appx 10% profit) car.

 

[dhanson865]

From recent news, it's very likely 60kWh is out for the base model. Only question is by how much? I'm still going with 55kWh, unless Tesla abandons their increments of 5/10kWh tradition.

Assuming Tesla's battery costs are ~$180/kWh, this will be a savings of $900 per car for Tesla, not an insignificant figure for what will already be a low margin (appx 10% profit) car.

Musk and JB have said that Model 3 will be closer to 20% profit. They've repeatedly said cheaper doesn't mean low margin even if margin is a couple of percent lower than model S they will have a markup for optional features.

 

[rEVhappy]

Musk and JB have said that Model 3 will be closer to 20% profit. They've repeatedly said cheaper doesn't mean low margin even if margin is a couple of percent lower than model S they will have a markup for optional features.

I was mainly referring to the base model. I do not doubt that an AP equipped dual motor with a larger pack will ring in 20%+, but the $35k model (possibly $37,500 with AP) will not have the same margins as a well equipped model.

 

[dhanson865]

I was mainly referring to the base model. I do not doubt that an AP equipped dual motor with a larger pack will ring in 20%+, but the $35k model (possibly $37,500 with AP) will not have the same margins as a well equipped model.

And while I'll agree that a stripped Model 3 will have lower margin than a fully optioned Model 3 I don't think they'll leave it as low as 10% on the stripped model.

 

[rEVhappy]

And while I'll agree that a stripped Model 3 will have lower margin than a fully optioned Model 3 I don't think they'll leave it as low as 10% on the stripped model.

Switching on Autopilot at say.. $2500 (which I'm assuming will have a very high take rate) will put them at over 19% instantly.

 

[rEVhappy]

Let's also remember that the Volt engineer on the earnings call (who was indirectly responsible for the new information by Tesla) expected the Model 3 to have a 60 kWh pack and for it to break even at $36500, so he figured the base car will be a loss leader. So we do have to assume that all the costs incurred in R&D and tooling will not give Tesla as much wiggle room to eke out 20% on the stripper model.

 

[dhanson865]

Switching on Autopilot at say.. $2500 (which I'm assuming will have a very high take rate) will put them at over 19% instantly.

Pick your attitude then, you can't have it both ways.

Either they are selling the vast majority of the cars at 20% profit or they aren't. Why mention your theory of a low margin for the stripper if you think the vast majority will be above 20%?

 

[ken830]

We know actual margins of the Model S vehicles that people actually buy, but do we know the margin for a base-no-options car? Now? Back when the 40kWh and 60kWh were available?

 

[rEVhappy]

Pick your attitude then, you can't have it both ways.

Either they are selling the vast majority of the cars at 20% profit or they aren't. Why mention your theory of a low margin for the stripper if you think the vast majority will be above 20%?

This has nothing to do with my 'attitude'. I primarily mentioned the base stripper car for $35,000 because that's what most of the discussion and back n forth in this thread has been about. It is pretty damn obvious that the base car will be low margin, while the higher optioned cars will be higher. This is how it works throughout the entire car industry.

Why I'm mentioning the low margin car is due to speculation on the base pack for the absolute base car and the costs associated with making that happen, just in case you weren't paying attention to this thread. Even the Chevy guys were thinking the base $35k car will be a loss leader, and we know that even an addition of an extra 5Kw will add appx $750-$1000 to each car. Back track in this thread if you have to, and drop the personal comments.

 

[Rashomon]

There's a big difference between cell and pack level costs. Tesla/Panasonic equivalent cells have been under $175/kWh for some time. I got quotes based on 10 MWh/year 15 months ago, and they were at that cost or a bit lower then. Tesla buys orders of magnitude more cells than that, and I'm sure they've driven Panasonic's margin down to perhaps single digits. The Japanese think strategically in rapidly expanding markets, and will price to be one of the gorillas when the growth phase is over -- then they'll have more pricing power.
Packs are complex, and add substantial cost. It's impressive that Tesla is under $190/kWh with current product, but not really very surprising. If the gigafactory drops costs by 30 percent as they're claiming, they may be down to $145/kWh before too long at the pack level. I still think the small pack for the 3 will be between 50 and 55 kWh (now with some Tesla support for that position), and deliver an EPA 5-cycle average that squeaks past Musk's 215-mile range claim. The fact the car will be very aerodynamic will mean it will do better range at 75 mph on the highway with say 52 kWh than a Bolt with 60 kWh. The Bolt may have better pure urban range. The big pack for the 3 will probably be 30-35 percent bigger, priced under $10000 (perhaps substantially under), and give somewhat less than 300 miles EPA range. By the time the Model 3 is fully ramped, Tesla could easily launch a true second-generation Model S with similar efficiency improvements and well over 400 miles EPA range, justifying the price difference.

 

[Fred Thompson]

I would like to see Tesla engineer the battery packs into modules that can be easily added or replaced. The engineering could include plug and play where the system recognizes an added module(s) and balances the system accordingly. Using modules would save money when there is a failure where only the bad module would need to be replaced and Tesla would benefit from increase sales by selling additional modules as customers want more battery range.

 

[Troy]

Hi, everybody. I've calculated the drag area of the Model S and 3, using the method described here. To do that, first I had to create silhouette versions of the front photos. You can find those here. Interestingly, the difference is only 2.9%:

Model S drag area: 2.43 m^2
Model 3 drag area: 2.36 m^2

I assumed that the height is 1435 mm for both models. At least that's what wikipedia shows.
Tesla Model 3 - Wikipedia
Tesla Model S - Wikipedia

Besides the drag area, if we consider the drag coefficient numbers as well (0.21 and 0.24), it looks like the Model 3 will be 15% more efficient excluding any additional efficiency because of less weight. Ignoring weight, the RWD Model 3 55 could achieve 210/60*55*1.15= 221 mi EPA but the 55 kWh battery weighs less than the 60 and the rest of the car should weigh less too. However, weight doesn't affect range that much. So my best guess for Model 3 55 is 227 mi EPA.

 

[Jayc]

I would like to see Tesla engineer the battery packs into modules that can be easily added or replaced. The engineering could include plug and play where the system recognizes an added module(s) and balances the system accordingly. Using modules would save money when there is a failure where only the bad module would need to be replaced and Tesla would benefit from increase sales by selling additional modules as customers want more battery range.

In principle that is not a bad idea at all. The ability to replace individual battery modules might also mean better resale value for the car.

In practice however, it might be a challenge to design the battery pack to allow easy access to battery modules while retaining safety. For example, if the cooling mechanism is such that coolant carrying pipes have to be in physical contact with each 2170 cell, then that will mean that replacing individual battery modules will involve re-attaching coolant lines and should an issue develop somewhere in the cooling system, that might be even more difficult to diagnose and fix. I don't know, just speculating here but obviously it is probably not an easy challenge, otherwise Tesla would have already done it with the Model S and X.